Tuesday, October 13, 2009

God vs. Science isn't the point

... says this WSJ editorial. Because in practice even the most hard-core atheists will often act as believers when it comes to family. And I say, Thank God:

"Remember Peter Singer? Mr. Singer is the Princeton utilitarian who accepts scientism's view that human beings are not fundamentally different from animals, just more complex. In his thinking, those who cannot reason for themselves or have lost their self-awareness have no real claim to life. Yet when Alzheimer's struck his mother, he paid for care to prolong and sustain her life. The irony is that an act that does him credit as a son must discredit him among those whose principles about life he claims to share.

"To put it another way, while we talk about the clash between God and science, in practice it often comes down to disagreements about man and morals. The boundaries are not always neat. Many Americans who are indifferent to faith will confess they find themselves challenged as they try to raise good and decent children without the religious confidence their parents had. The result may not be a return to religion but a healthy agnosticism about agnosticism itself."

[emphasis mine]

"A healthy agnosticism about agnosticism itself." I've never heard it put that way. But I like it.